Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #894914 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-01-14 22:45 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-01-30 18:33 +0000 |
| Articles | 9 on this page of 69 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-14 22:45 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-15 09:20 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity x <x@x.net> - 2026-01-15 13:12 -0800
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-15 22:20 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-16 08:22 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-16 11:50 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-01-16 22:18 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-17 11:58 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-17 15:13 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-17 20:34 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-18 05:28 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-18 19:11 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-18 23:48 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-18 23:50 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-19 20:51 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-19 22:03 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-20 12:01 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-20 15:08 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-20 19:43 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-18 04:03 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-01-18 18:46 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-20 12:16 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-01-20 13:13 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-01-20 14:39 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-01-20 15:02 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-01-20 15:26 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-20 19:58 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-01-20 20:58 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-01-20 21:00 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-21 20:27 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-01-21 21:20 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-22 13:35 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-23 13:19 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-24 06:37 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-24 17:37 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-26 11:03 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-26 15:12 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-01-22 13:07 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2026-01-20 08:05 -0600
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-20 19:39 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-21 02:12 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-21 20:21 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-27 22:37 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-27 22:50 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-20 17:11 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-20 20:02 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-21 08:28 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-21 20:09 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-27 22:45 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-28 19:43 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-29 04:19 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-29 21:45 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-01-29 22:08 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-30 18:32 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-01-30 19:04 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-30 19:47 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2026-01-29 17:11 -0600
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-30 01:19 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-30 18:09 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-30 01:18 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-30 18:26 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-30 14:09 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-01-29 11:54 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-29 21:51 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-01-29 22:13 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-30 01:20 +0100
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-30 18:07 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-01-30 18:17 +0000
Re: A Derivation of Faraday's law from Coulomb's Law and Relativity Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2026-01-30 18:33 +0000
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-30 18:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <s5J7bSNrxNC5tz-2MFfKE6dR7Kw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #894987 |
Le 30/01/2026 à 01:18, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit : > Kuan Peng wrote: >> Le 29/01/2026 à 04:19, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit : >> >> You think the current to be "alternating", > > It is alternating. > >> I think it to be direct, > > Merely an academic possibility. In real life, a transformer transforms high > voltage to low voltage or vice-versa because the current is an alternating > current. > My coils A and B are not those of a transformer. Just two plain coils. Nevertheless, Faraday’s law should work with them with a linearly increasing current. >>> Also, in general you should not think of electricity as electrons (or worse, >>> positive charges) flowing through a conductor from one end of a circuit to >>> the other, like flowing water. That is NOT how it works: >> Is electron beam an electric current? > > Yes. > >> Do we use Maxwell’s equations to describe its behavior? > > Yes. > > Your point being? If an electron beam is a current and Maxwell’s equations work for it. Then, a current in a conductor should be consistent with Maxwell’s equations whether >>> think of electricity as electrons (or worse, positive charges) flowing through a >>> conductor >>>from one end of a circuit to the other, Or NOT. > > You are not in a position to make an informed judgement because evidently > you have never studied physics. He has, and so have I; he is correct. > You are the judge > > I am not interpreting, I *know* because I have studied it. *You* are > interpreting because you do NOT know. Big difference. You are the judge >> The induced voltage > > Voltages are not induced. > You can say it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-30 14:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10liaie$8845$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #894977 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Kuan Peng wrote: >> 1. Before the current circulates in coil A, there is not a current in coil >> B . >> 2. After the current circulates in coil A, a current is induced in coil B. > > In practice there is no "circulating current" as it is an "alternating" > current to maximize the induced current. No idea why I put "alternating" in quotes here. An alternating current changes direction periodically, in practice usually with a frequency of either 50 Hz or 60 Hz, or a mixture of both (so about 50 to 60 times per second): <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternating_current#AC_power_supply_frequencies> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-29 11:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <radiation-20260129125256@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #894974 |
Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote or quoted: >But each physicist attribute it different sense in his head and it is his >proper interpretation that makes that different physicist when predicting >the outcome of a same experiment using the same formula ∇ × E' = >-∂B'/∂t can give different result. Well, with that formula there really isn't much of an issue. There's one part in electrodynamics that's kind of murky, and that's the stuff tied to the radiation reaction. |The Abraham-Lorentz formula has disturbing implications, |which are not entirely understood a century after the law |was first proposed. from "Radiation Reaction" in "Introduction to Electrodynamics" (2013) - David J. Griffiths
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-29 21:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jp-GeBzwkagaLDWcn8lgOF_dMUQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #894980 |
Le 29/01/2026 à 12:54, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) a écrit : > Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote or quoted: >>But each physicist attribute it different sense in his head and it is his >>proper interpretation that makes that different physicist when predicting >>the outcome of a same experiment using the same formula ∇ × E' = >>-∂B'/∂t can give different result. > > Well, with that formula there really isn't much of an issue. > There's one part in electrodynamics that's kind of murky, > and that's the stuff tied to the radiation reaction. > > |The Abraham-Lorentz formula has disturbing implications, > |which are not entirely understood a century after the law > |was first proposed. > from "Radiation Reaction" in "Introduction to Electrodynamics" > (2013) - David J. Griffiths Electromagnetism has many paradoxes. For example, Lorentz force violates Newton’s third law.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-29 22:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <law-20260129231235@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #894983 |
Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote or quoted: >Electromagnetism has many paradoxes. For example, Lorentz force violates >Newton’s third law. This is true. But it just means that Newton's laws have a limited scope. I do not deem this to be an actual paradox, because we can clearly see that here electromagnetism has priority over Newton. |In electrostatics and magnetostatics the third law holds, |but in electrodynamics it does not. "Newton’s Third Law in Electrodynamics" in "Introduction to electrodynamics" (2013) by David J. Griffiths.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-30 01:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10lgtgg$2p57$3@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #894983 |
Kuan Peng wrote: > Electromagnetism has many paradoxes. For example, Lorentz force violates > Newton’s third law. :-D No, it does NOT. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-30 18:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4GIriUvpholBK52mnD6el90xyqQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #894989 |
Le 30/01/2026 à 01:20, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit : > Kuan Peng wrote: >> Electromagnetism has many paradoxes. For example, Lorentz force violates >> Newton’s third law. > > :-D > > No, it does NOT. Please see this: Le 29/01/2026 à 23:13, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) a écrit : > Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote or quoted: >>Electromagnetism has many paradoxes. For example, Lorentz force violates >>Newton’s third law. > > This is true. But it just means that Newton's laws have a limited > scope. I do not deem this to be an actual paradox, because we can > clearly see that here electromagnetism has priority over Newton. > > |In electrostatics and magnetostatics the third law holds, > |but in electrodynamics it does not. > "Newton’s Third Law in Electrodynamics" in "Introduction to > electrodynamics" (2013) by David J. Griffiths.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-30 18:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <example-20260130191213@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #894992 |
Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote or quoted: >Please see this: >Le 29/01/2026 à 23:13, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) a écrit : >>Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote or quoted: >>>Electromagnetism has many paradoxes. For example, Lorentz force violates >>>Newton’s third law. >>This is true. But it just means that Newton's laws have a limited >>scope. I do not deem this to be an actual paradox, because we can >>clearly see that here electromagnetism has priority over Newton. >>|In electrostatics and magnetostatics the third law holds, >>|but in electrodynamics it does not. >>"Newton’s Third Law in Electrodynamics" in "Introduction to >>electrodynamics" (2013) by David J. Griffiths. Here's an example for this (taken from Griffiths): Assume, q1 is moving along the x axis at constant speed, and q2 has the charge of q1 and is moving along the y axis at the same speed. The electric force is repulsive. The magnetic field of of q1 at q2 points into the page, so the magnetic force on q2 is towards the /right/. (The "page" on which the coordinate system is drawn.) The magnetic field of of q2 at q1 points out of the page, so the magnetic force on q1 is /upwards/. So, the force of q1 on q2 is /not/ opposite to the force of q2 on q1. (We can assume additional forces guiding the two particles to move along those two axes at constant speed to fulfill our preconditions.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-30 18:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Ly9MucwwTzgHXk8ObCiaX4uxac4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #894994 |
Le 30/01/2026 à 19:17, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) a écrit : > Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote or quoted: >>Please see this: >>Le 29/01/2026 à 23:13, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) a écrit : >>>Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote or quoted: >>>>Electromagnetism has many paradoxes. For example, Lorentz force violates >>>>Newton’s third law. >>>This is true. But it just means that Newton's laws have a limited >>>scope. I do not deem this to be an actual paradox, because we can >>>clearly see that here electromagnetism has priority over Newton. >>>|In electrostatics and magnetostatics the third law holds, >>>|but in electrodynamics it does not. >>>"Newton’s Third Law in Electrodynamics" in "Introduction to >>>electrodynamics" (2013) by David J. Griffiths. > > Here's an example for this (taken from Griffiths): > > Assume, q1 is moving along the x axis at constant speed, > and q2 has the charge of q1 and is moving along the y axis > at the same speed. > > The electric force is repulsive. > > The magnetic field of of q1 at q2 points into the page, > so the magnetic force on q2 is towards the /right/. > (The "page" on which the coordinate system is drawn.) > > The magnetic field of of q2 at q1 points out of the page, > so the magnetic force on q1 is /upwards/. > > So, the force of q1 on q2 is /not/ opposite to the force > of q2 on q1. > > (We can assume additional forces guiding the two particles to move > along those two axes at constant speed to fulfill our preconditions.) exact
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web